where there's prejudice or going somewhere else and lessening their lives. i think it puts people in a position with children, where their parents don't have standing under the law. not only is this a problem when it comes to marriage but when there's no major laws, there's no divorce laws which puts these children in harm's way and in limbo. this must change. it is unfair.
it is just not the american way and this country is ready for it. but i will agree with brian on this. no matter what, there's been so much momentum. no matter what happens with this, get california, that will be the tenth straight in the district of columbia with the marriage equality. 278 of america's largest corporations said it is bad for business to discriminate leading up to the court cases. we saw several senators from rockport, claire mccaskill to mark warner come out and say they're in support. the tide has turned. it is safe for even republicans to come out now. there's no going back so the court might as well take that step and do the right thing today. >> john: i'm glad you mentioned the corporations. we've learned in this age of supermergers, our politicians don't mind when corporations marry corporations, even polygamy. i want to talk about justice scalia's comments on children raised by same-sex couples. of course, he's against gay marriage traditionally because of his catholic background, a follower of jesus who was a
noted nonhomophobe. justice kennedy cited the 40,000 children who live with same sex parents. isn't this a myth that it is a lie for children to be brought up in same sex households. >> just as they came out in favor of marriage equality, every respected mental health -- none have shown a harm to children. all have shown the results are exactly like heterosexual couples. this is not experimental as he said. the experiment is over the test tubes have been locked up and put away. we know the answer to this. you can raise wonderful children in homes with gay and lesbian parents. that's false information. as far as i'm concerned justice scalia should recuse himself from such cases. he's acted more like a talk radio show host than a respected member of the supreme court. and he's just simply embarrass his profession at this point.
>> john: that's why a.m. radio loves him. brian, were you surprised to hear scalia save that? >> unfortunately not. as wayne said, that's just patently false. that's just not where child welfare organizations are and as justice kennedy pointed out ho,000 kids being raised in california are being harmed by their parents not being able to get married. >> john: founder and executive director of truth wins out wayne besen and legal director for the human rights campaign, brian moulton. what a pleasure to have your insights this evening. thank you. >> thank you. >> john: while supreme court ponders what to do on the issue of gay marriage, more and more politicians are rethinking their once held opposition. richard socarides and larry pressler join me next. (vo) the answer in a moment. brought to you by expedia. expedia helps 30 million travellers a month find what they are looking for one traveller at a time.
(vo) brought to you by expedia. expedia helps 30 million travellers a month find what they are looking for one traveller at a time. dude, i need your help fast. well, clearasil's fast. yeah, but is it this fast? faster! how about this fast? clearasil's faster! this fast?? faster!! woh! that is fast! fix breakouts fast with clearasil
current tv is the place for true stories. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv. >> john: it's time for our thing of the day and today it is our senator dude of the day. senator rand paul says that while he does not support the legalization of marijuana he thinks pot users should not be harshly punished when they're busted and laws should be adjusted so one mistake doesn't mess up their lives. that's the different between decriminalization and legalization. it is mind-blowing. every now and then senator paul takes a same common sense
position that is way to the left of president obama and i would be really freaked out by that if i weren't so high right now. but i would know rand paul can be counted on to come down from the psychedelic world of sanity and go back down to earth in the perch and crazyville where he normally lives. by the way ironically, he came back to crazyville but more on that later on in the show. now when president obama came out in favor of marriage equality last year, it marked a turning point in the gay rights movement. 51% of the country did not support marriage equality. now 53% do. in recent weeks perhaps coinciding with the recent surge in popularity, more and more politicians have begun to come out of the closet in support of gay marriage. first, senator rob portman who changed his mind after his own son came out two years ago. hillary clinton announced her support in a youtube video in no way preparing for a 2016 campaign. four democratic senators revealed their support of gay
marriage. missouri senator claire mccaskill, mark warner, alaska senator mark bell itch and this afternoon, jon tester from the great state of montana. right now it doesn't matter how much public support we have, it lies in the hands of six men and three women who are wearing long, black dresses. joining me is larry pressler who was one of dozens of prominent republicans who signed a legal brief arguing gay people have a constitutional right to marry. i'm thrilled to welcome back richard socarides, former director of the clinton/gore campaign and was an adviser to lgbt issues. what a pleasure to have you both here tonight. senator pressler, thank you. let me start with you sir. you signed that legal brief arguing that gay americans have a constitutional right to marry which was presented to the supreme court in support of the seeking to strike down proposition 8. when you were serving in the senate, of course, you voted for
the defense of marriage act. what was it, sir over the past 15 or so years that changed your mind on this issue? >> i think the main thing that caused me to change my mind was my work with veterans groups. as you know, our military now is open to gay people. and i served in the army in vietnam many years ago and one of my main activities now is to be a volunteer for homeless veterans or for veterans who have ptsd or veterans with agent orange problems. and i have found that -- and have encountered in particular, one gay couple who are veterans who want to get married but in their state, they can't. and they would also like to have a family some day. and it is something like in world war ii, we had the african-american veterans who fought but when they got home, they couldn't vote. so nowadays, we have gays in the military, of course we had gays in the military before but now we have openly gay people in the military.
when they come out we tell them that they're not entitled to this civil right. so the thing that triggered moo he was working with some of these folks who are struggling to get back on their feet, homeless veterans and others, who happen to be gay who want to get married and have a family. so actually in our brief we argue that this is the new conservative position, that marriage is a conservative institution and an adoption of children is a conservative institution in a sense. >> john: well, i agree. i do love it when both conservative and liberal ideologies converge on an issue as they do so beautifully in this one. richard, you worked with a politician who had one of the biggest changes of heart when it comes to marriage equality. president clinton. he signed doma but he's completely changed course. he called doma unconstitutional. i will be commenting on that in the block later in the show. i defend him on signing doma for
lbgt rights in a way. do you think it is public opinion that drives the changes or is there something deeper going on? >> it is exactly what senator pressler described as his own experience. as more and more people come out of the closet, as more and more people are open and honest about who they are and open and honest about their sexual orientation more people know them. when you know someone one on one, when you've had an experience like senator pressler had with these veterans he's trying to help, when you've had an experience like senator portman had his own son as millions of americans are having with their coworkers and people they encounter in everyday life, they're understanding that this is a very simple, basic right that we want. it is a right, the same right to make the commitment, to have the same rights and responsibilities and to make a commitment to the person we love. so i think that as more and more people understand it on a personal level, it is really changing people's minds. >> john: indeed. in fact, senator, i would like
to ask did you know gay americans earlier in your life when you served or when you were in the senate and was it something you struggled with earlier before you came to your conclusion on this issue? >> well, long ago i joined in barry gold water he used to say that people should be straight or gay if they can shoot straight. so i felt we should have -- allow gays to serve in the military for a long time. and now that's been accepted and adopted. so we have moved -- rather than debating all of the paths we need to go from this point forward. we have gays in the military now. we have this case. a problem with this case may be that the court will feel that we're trying to go too fast. justice frankfurter once wrote an opinion about the court shouldn't get into the political thicket too soon. the court might feel you should
have another referendum in california. i hope that's not the case. but in any event one way or o another, these rights will be opened up. it is similar to the civil right in world war ii where we had a lot of veterans who served african-americans who served very well and they got home and all of a sudden, they found out they couldn't vote. in fact, they couldn't vote for another 20 years. and i hope that that's not the case. a lot of -- in the -- in certain parts of our country people couldn't vote until the late 1960s after the civil rights act of 1965. so i look upon this as a continuing evolvement of our civil rights. and i think that a lot of people's thinking evolves. that's something about a democracy. we are moving along. and so it really isn't a matter of what we thought before or who we knew or whatever. it is from this day forward. i think that it will be a
blessing for america and it is, as we wrote in our brief 117 republicans, we think this is the new conservative position in part and we're not in an argument with anybody. we believe that we just don't want to stop people who want to get married and who want to adopt children. >> john: indeed. i'm glad you brought up senator goldwater. he came out in favor of letting openly gay troops serve long before don't ask, don't tell. even president reagan before he got into the white house in 197 *6r, campaigned against the proposition in california that would have kept gay americans from teaching in school classes. so there is a respectable history of republican advocacy on this issue. so richard i want to ask you do you think now that gay marriage is going to be a divisive issue and a very potent issue in the upcoming 2016 presidential race? >> i don't think so because i think that by 2016, we'll have
some clear pronouncements by the courts and i think that perhaps even a republican presidential candidate who supports marriage equality or maybe someone who says that they support full rights, not just the use of the term "marriage." i want to pick on something senator pressler said. we had arguments on prop 8. tomorrow, we'll have the arguments around the defense of marriage act. there was a signal from some of the justices they might want to decide this case on procedural grounds, not reach the merits. i have a post up now on new yorker.com which analyzes that. i think though, we should not read too much into the questions today. i still think there is a significant chance that this supreme court term will be remembered as one for great advances on gay rights. so i think that the verdict is still out. probably will not have a decision until june. i think it is going to be a significant advance either way. >> john: i hope you're right. i thank you both for your service and advocacy on this
issue. richard, chris christie will come out for marriage equality before 2016. you just watch. larry pressler and the one and only richard socarides, thank you both for coming on the show. >> thank you very much. >> john: when is a mob sync more than a simple mob sync? when it is a sharia law mob sync. wtf tennessee coming up next. actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. fruit just got cooler. fruit on one side, cool on the other. ice breakers duo a fruity cool way to break the ice. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's lobsterfest our largest selection of lobster entrees like lobster lover's dream or new grilled lobster and lobster tacos. come in now and sea food differently. now, buy one lobsterfest entree and get one 1/2 off with a coupon at redlobster.com.
>> john: it's wtf tennessee week. today we have one that might just go into the wtf hall of fame. now in 2011, tennessee state senator bill kel tron and state representative jud matheny proposed making certain tenets of sharia's law a felony like the practice of foot washing before engaging in muslim prayer. this is only fair since some
right wing politicians in tennessee never wash the red out of their necks before engaging in christian prayer. this week, tennessee lawmakers saw something that put the fear of god the one true god according to what jesus wrote in the constitution, right into them. they saw a mop sink and mistook it for a muslim foot washing station. nothing gets past these guys except common sense intelligence and decency. somehow, they were reassured it was a mop sink dedicated to the wiping clean conservative puke up off the floor. all kids aside if you see a mop sink or a wash bucket or a spittoon that looks suspicious, please immediately notify the nearest stupidest authorities. wtf, tennessee. don't your legislators have anything better to do than worry about the height of a sink in the capitol building? i'm sorry. this is the right wing guys in tennessee we're talking about. of course they don't.
thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will let me say anything. [ lisa ] my name's lisa, and chantix helped me quit. i honestly loved smoking and i honestly didn't think i would ever quit. [ male announcer ] along with support chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you could smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood hostility, agitation depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea
>> john: our -- are memphis prosecutors trying to send an innocent man back to death row? that's the issue that liliana segura proposes. she tells the story of mckinney convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death back in 1989 for fatally shooting a memphis police officer outside a comedy club. proof emerged indicating the same shelby county district attorney who said mckinney would squeeze off a round into mother teresa had, in fact, suppressed evidence that would have cast doubt on mckinney's guilt and he'd done it with the complicit of his own defense
attorney. the proof was not overwhelming. his attorney's failures had rendered the entire proceeding fundamentally unfair. at mckinney's second trial last april the prosecution's key witness changed details of their testimony details that were crucial in mckinney's original conviction but because the jurors did not reach a unanimous verdict the judge declared a mistrial. shelby county prosecutors will try to reconvict mr. mckinney again next month. lillian's story appears in "the nation." she joins us now. thank you for your time, liliana and thank you for writing this piece in the first place. >> thank you. >> john: the possibility of an innocent black man may have been sent to death row in tennessee should we be shocked? >> no. no one who has paid attention to this kind of history who paid attention to the case of troy davis in a different state should be shocked. when it comes to this sort of factors that lead potentially be in the people to land on death row, this case really stands out
because, like so many, it centers on the issue of -- i'm sorry, of eyewitness identification which as i mention in my piece is by far the leading cause of wrongful convictions in cases overturned by dna evidence. so that right there is a big red flag regardless of race. >> john: especially disturbing is the eyewitness testimony. you mention in the piece, i found this remarkable that eyewitness misidentification was responsible for 76% of the first 250 wrongful convictions overturned through dna. is there a way to remedy this in the future? >> there is. efforts have been underway for years and years in states across the country to remedy this. there's all sorts of techniques that sort of efforts to address that very problem. but reform is slow going in many places. for as long as we've known this is a problem reform should be happening faster. part of the resistance comes from the very police officers and prosecutors who would need it be at the?
of implementing them. >> john: you mentioned aside from the witness the owner of the comedy club, who was a friend of the deceased officer was told by the police the guy he threw out of the club was the man who committed this murder. he told the police this is not the guy i threw out of the club. >> right. my piece opens up with his sort of voice. he was never interviewed by police officers. now, what's important to note here, none of the eyewitnesses ever recanted their testimony. but there are so many clashing descriptions of the shooter. there are so many people who had totally different versions of what they saw of the person, of what the person was wearing and donald crump himself he knows what he heard. he knows what he saw. it is not clear necessarily the person he threw out is the actual killer. but it is clear that that person isn't timothy mckinney. >> john: his testimony was disregarded. and the jury didn't get to hear it. >> absolutely. >> john: what role do prosecutorial misconduct play in this particular case? how bad is it?
>> it's huge. it is reason timothy mckinney landed on death row. his conviction was overturned in 2010 on the grounds he received inadequate counsel for obvious reasons. you see this in tennessee and across the country. but when you look at the sort of database of wrongful convictions out of the university of michigan, a fairly recent tool, you'll see a lot of those exonerations come about in part because it was proven that there was inadequate defense counsel. huge number, far more have official misconduct at the center. that's police misconduct, in this case, the prosecutors both the original prosecutor and now the current prosecutor had a history of concealing exculpatory evidence. >> john: are prosecutors immune from prosecution? >> prosecutors are immune from being sued. prosecutors have all sorts of things that protect them from being held accountable for very deep corruption and that's how they get away with it. >> john: you tracked down the jurors from mr. mckinney's
second trial. one of the jurors total you after the trial, this quote was amazing said if i had been in the jury room, i would have been felt like mr. mckinney was guilty. if this isn't a legal it has to be highly unethical. this is based on what the judge said? after the mistrial last april apparently met with the jurors afterwards. that's something judges are allowed to do as long as they don't make comments the one the juror claims that he made. when i looked at the rules surrounding judicial conduct in tennessee, it was very clear that that could rise to misconduct and is grounds -- as a law professor told me, it is grounds for recusal. that doesn't appear to be happening so mckinney will go to trial with this judge who seems to have obvious biases against him. >> john: what would need to happen for this conviction to be overturned? >> well, since he is facing a new trial so shelby county jail, as if they're starting over now for the third time. he would have to be acquitted to be freed. or if the next trial ends in another hung jury or
inconclusive, the prosecutors could drop the charges. looking at the culture of shelby county prosecutors, that doesn't look like it is likely to happen. >> john: are you going back to memphis? >> i am. >> john: thank you so much for your reporting on this. liliana segura is the editor for the "nation" magazine. thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> john: the nra sink to a new low. robocalling families of victims in newtown connecticut. for true stories. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv.
>> john: you seem to think republican voters won't like it, kim, but ted rand, mike, if you're watching this and i know you are it's current don't listen to kim. please run in 2016. we comedians are depending on you. comics should not live on chris christie alone. if you have a comment, please tweet us. post it on our facebook page. here's a chance to play along at home. think about if you would a new possible low for the nra. go one level lower. now one more until you find a bar so low that cheney could trip over it in his underground bunker and there you will find this recording of an nra robocall that went out this week to the residents of newtown, connecticut.
>> john: okay. here's the best part. only is that despicable, it is a lie. no bill in connecticut or anywhere in the country seeks to disarm any law-abiding gun owner, take the fox out of your ears. i would like to repeat that number they gave and put it on the screen so you can all enjoy it. it is 703-267-1200. that's the number for the nra's institute for legislative action grassroots division. i recommend returning the favor and give them a call. though i do warn after numerous attempts today i only received a message saying all operators are busy because apparently the nra doesn't like receiving unwanted calls. joining me now is my panel of nonexperts, contributor to forbes.com rick ungar tina dupuy and managing director and host of this week in blackness the formidable elon james white. thank you so much for being on the show tonight. three of my favorites.
i'm so upset at this. let's get started. rick, have you ever heard of anything more disgusting than the nra robocalling people to fight for gun rights and lie about gun legislation in newtown, connecticut? >> i gotta tell you. your producer and i actually spent time trying to come up with some way to make this a conversation. it is impossible. it is the most insensitive thing i think i may have ever heard of in my life. it is that insane. we were trying everything. how do you make this a conversation? there's no way. >> john: innocent guy on death row and there are a few more inconsiderate things that could be done. elon? >> i think you guys are overreacting here. [ laughter ] >> i don't understand why you're upset. why wouldn't you call about gun rights where people lost a bunch of children to gun violence. i think you guys need to get out of your liberal bubble and realize real life. >> john: as if the -- the nra refused to apologize. they released a statement that said the national rifle
association has supporters in connect connect who expect us to do our jobs and keep them abreast of developments on the legislative front in their state. even if it is made up. we provide the same service for members around the country. tina is being completely unsympathetic, part of the nra's job description? >> duh. [ laughter ] >> yes. here's what i think is getting lost in the greater conversation about gun control. >> john: please. >> when it comes to gun control and to gun laws, we really -- we go to the state -- we go to the places with the fewest amount of regulations. for example, washington, d.c. has a lot of gun violence within washington, d.c. they have very strict gun control laws there. but they're very close to virginia. same thing in chicago. where cook county has loose gun laws but the city of chicago has very strict gun laws. so what happens in connecticut really means nothing when you are in the tri-state area and the gun used -- the weapons used
in the newtown shooting were from new jersey. >> john: new york gets tons of virginia guns. slate and the twitter handle has been keeping track of every gun-related death since the newtown tragedy. the number in three months, mind you is now up to 3,029. i'll repeat that. 3,029 of your american citizens killed in gun violence. yet congress is struggling to get something as simple and popular, even among nra members as background checks passed. rick, what's the disconnect here? >> it is simple. the nra is the most effective lobby we have in this country for two reasons. they have the inside game which is the money that they spend although it is not as much as people think. it is outside game. they can mobilize their troops better than any lobbying force in america and that is what the politicians are afraid of. and that's the difference. >> john: elon, can you imagine the head of the afl afl-cio draw
a press conference? >> if you remember when wayne lapierrre had his press conference, it was a bit ridiculous. the situation here is this. when you look at how they're actually laying this all out, it is about how the framing will happen. so basically they're making sure that when you say that you are against this, that you are against america. that you are against the very constitution so it is very hard to get people to say that because that's how they're framing it. they're not framing it from a position of this will save lives. this will actually help our country. they're framing it, are you a pro america or against america? and that's it. >> john: you know what? god help the senator who brings up what the first half of the second amendment says about their well-regulated militias because that guy will get primaried. senator ted cruz of texas rand paul of kentucky says they may consider filibustering any new gun control legislation. is it safe to assume they're at peace with the amount of gun violence in this country? >> absolutely. we have the most -- we have the
highest amount of civilian gun ownership in the world. the highest amount. so therefore if the nra is right, rand paul's right we should be the safest country in the world. we're not. we're the 14th highest in gun deaths. even higher when it comes to just gun-related injuries. so no. this is really -- the victims but not just the children that we saw died at newtown but the 3,000 since then and the 3,000 before then. >> john: the 3,000 to come. only a minute left. i want to get to this story. north dakota's republican governor jack dalrymple signed into law the most restrictive abortion bill including one that forbids abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. did north dakota win the race to the bottom in regards to women's health? elon, you're a man. i'll go to you. [ laughter ] >> i know when i think about abortion -- here's the thing. am i shocked? i can't pretend i am.
this sounds about right because they've been constantly coming up with ways to restrict women in better and bigger ways. they only have one abortion clinic in the entire -- so in that one place if you're going to do anything, let's make it really super hard. we don't particularly care for vagina americans. we're going to do whatever we can to make it uncomfortable for them. >> john: tina, is it possible -- >> you don't know what i'm going to say. >> my body my mind. you don't know. >> john: i had no idea you were going to say that. here's the thing. is it possible these guys know this is going to be tied up in appeals for years to come? >> you're trolling. they're trolling to get to the supreme court. they ultimately want to overturn roe v. wade. they're trolling to get to the supreme court. before that happens, they want a lot of women to die from unsafe abortions. >> john: rick? >> they have a big problem. not only does this particular law violate roe v. wade. this one violates three or four cases that have come since.
this is so unconstitutional that if i were a citizen of that state, i would be going bonkers that they're going to waste my money. pursuing this case. it is unbelievable. >> john: with only one abortion clinic as elon pointed out in the whole state what are they worried about? it is all about pandering to the right to get votes. they know they won't be restricting that much anyway. as i pointed out, how many women don't know they're pregnant at six weeks into the pregnancy? >> in arizona two weeks before conception, you're actually pregnant. >> john: gay marriage, we're almost out of time. but i'll put out the point a lot of republicans don't care about abortion or gay marriage or illegal immigration as long as they can use it as a fund-raising tool. correct? >> galvanizes the debate. >> john: wall street is fair. is that it, elon? >> in the midst of the rebranding, apparently they're
rebranding themselves to be the same bigoted folks. >> they don't care about it until it happens to their family. senator portman is getting all of the hurrahs. you know what? why did it take his son for him to do it. >> john: you'll want to see what comes up. >> that's when mitt romney was pro-choice when a friend of a family had died from illegal abortion. he was pro-choice until that was 30 years later. >> john: gave thousands to planned parenthood. my panel who are all brilliant will stay with me after the break. we'll talk about how the two parties took different paths on their evolution on gay marriage. don't go away. anything.
>> john: while i've still got my panel here, i would like to ask you guys one more question about political evolution. we've heard about this marriage equality. is there any issue now you think politicians are too afraid to support that they'll regret later on? rick ungar? >> maybe it is the day that we're having today but i think you're looking at it. i think you're seeing all of the politicians climbing on the ship as you see the democrats do. i don't know if they deserve points for it. they're coming to the party pretty late. >> john: indeed. >> this will be an issue. look we see -- the shift. if you're under 30, 80 pest of you are -- 80% of you are pro gay marriage. >> john: that's why mike huckabee is still against it. >> they'll get their butt whipped. >> speaking of people under 30, i think that student loan reform and for profit colleges is
something that years from now they're going to regret not being head of. it is a bubble that's about to burst and it will be disastrous, especially for kids. >> john: i would love to start a student loan movement. >> i'm going to go with bestiality because obviously that's why gay marriage leads to so if you want to be in front of this more liberal country you will probably need to be in front of that. >> john: best thing about letting a man marry an animal, they'll never reproduce. last night on the show, we talked about the wave of republicans who have seen the light on marriage equality. and that light is a flashing sign that says 2014, 2016. of some our o republican friends don't like to hear that because they contend plenty of democrats like bill clinton and barack obama have evolved on gay marriage too. now, as nice as it is for me to hear an american conservative mention the word evolution in a positive sense, i gotta tell you, all homophobes aren't created equal. take former president bill
clinton. yes, did he sign the defense of marriage act into law back in 1996. yes, that was a bad homophobic law that wrote discrimination into the fabric of our history. as tim gunn might say parts of that fabric are hideous. make it work. clinton was the first president to openly court lgbt americans during his campaign. his inaugural led to the first ever lgbt ball. he put his first term on the line fighting to allow gay and lesbians to serve in the military. it led to don't ask, don't tell and the g.o.p. did it using nonsense terms like threat to unit cohesion to justify a ban on gay soldiers because you wouldn't want gays in the army. that would keep the units from coming together. in the midst of an ugly re-election campaign, bill clinton signed the defense of marriage act but the lgbt community supported bill clinton in spite of doma because they had seen how hard he fought for them. most knew that if clinton had done the right thing and vetoed doma in a much more prejudiced
society, the g.o.p. would have pummeled him and they might have had bob dole sworn in 1997 who would not have been a friend to the gay community. that's the irony of the clinton compromise. by signing this off a law clinton arguably helped lgbt rights. take barack obama. barack obama was on the record supporting marriage equality as far back as 1996. once he ran for the white house he felt it was between a man and a woman. hardly admirable but clearly understandable as a political compromise. this was the president who stopped enforcing doma. who got rid of don't ask don't tell, before he came out in support of gay marriage and he did it before he ran for re-election. so what's the difference? these guys were clearly friends of the gay community long before they supported equality. they didn't go around demonizing love between two people of the same gender as a threat to traditional marriage like so many other g.o.p. politicians you can google right now. take rob portman. he didn't just oppose gay marriage. he wrote the defense of marriage act, tried to change the u.s. constitution to ban gay marriage, tried to ban adoptions
by gay couples. now, that someone he actually knows is guy he's changed his views. hasn't apologized for what he did before. also the fact that 52% of his state supporting marriage equality might have had something to do with it. or karl rove who ran a 2004 national campaign based largely on protecting traditional marriage but who now says he can see the g.o.p. running a pro marriage equality candidate. karl wrote five years of human history should not be overthrown because of the acts of a few local elected officials. no, karl but a steady stream of public opinion polls was enough for you. do you see the pattern my friends? both sides came around for votes but democrats generally were long-time friends of the gay community while republicans demonize them. based on cpac, a whole lot of them still don't. still do. there is cowardice and hate. being gay is natural. hating gay is a lifestyle choice. that's "viewpoint" for tonight. i would like to thank my panel contribu